On 30/08/2011 23:04, Heidrun Wiesenmueller wrote:
It might be worthwhile taking a look at cataloguing conventions used
outside the Anglo-American world: According to the German "Rules for
alphabetical cataloguing", we've added relator terms for persons such
as "editor" or "translator" for some
30.08.2011 23:04, Heidrun Wiesenmueller:
Actually, it's been puzzling me for some time why American librarians seem
to be simply putting up with the fact that an essential tool of our trade
does not work with keyword searching in their systems. Shouldn't there be
crowds of librarians demonstrati
On 25/08/2011, James Weinheimer wrote (on the question of whether relator
terms should be added manually in legacy data):
This is an example of the old thinking, as I mentioned. Before the web,
the solution you mention was pretty much the only answer but today,
instead of rolling up our shirtsl
On 26/08/2011 13:00, hec...@dml.vic.edu.au wrote:
Quoting James Weinheimer:
Worldcat has made one step forward, and an important one, but there
remains a lot to do since it still effectively hides many records
from searchers. I think there are many options to try to
interoperate, and this sho
Quoting James Weinheimer :
Worldcat has made one step forward, and an important one, but there
remains a lot to do since it still effectively hides many records
from searchers. I think there are many options to try to
interoperate, and this shows one step on the path toward the
realizatio
On 25/08/2011 22:53, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
Actually, in our catalog, WorldCat Local from OCLC, they DO look for
journal articles, and they are there, from many different databases,
with links to full text.
While I applaud this in many ways, many (most?) of the records for the
articles are i
Another possibility is to simply declare that a normal library catalog does not
allow that kind of access--it never
has and probably never will. People need to be directed to other tools, just as
they do not look for journal
articles in the catalog (although many people have never understood th
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
> Sent: August 25, 2011 2:52 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justificatio
James Weinheimer wrote:
> I have offered several suggestions, in fact, in the posting you quoted from.
> At the bottom, I wrote:
>
> How can we solve the matters of relators for our users? *Not* by
> proclaiming, "From this date onward, we shall add relator information to
> records we create orig
On 25/08/2011 17:04, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Do you actually have any kind of an idea of what solutions are the
correct ones, then? Continually saying that every solution being
offered is the wrong one, but never hinting at the right one, isn't
really helping.
I have offered several suggesti
Kevin Randall said:
>Do you actually have any kind of an idea of what solutions are the correct
>ones, then? Continually saying that every solution being offered is the
>wrong one, but never hinting at the right one, isn't really helping.
Kevin, I know you were addressing James, but justifyin
James Weinheimer wrote:
> What is the real solution to this? In my opinion, these are the
> arguments of old solutions and must be avoided as much as possible. We
> are in another environment that may be able to solve the problems for
> our *users* instead of continuing to pretend that if we simpl
On 25/08/2011 00:26, hec...@dml.vic.edu.au wrote:
Quoting Casey A Mullin :
Regarding the "extra time" argument, I will just say this succinctly.
At Stanford, we did not use relator codes/terms under AACR2. We do
under RDA (though, as previously stated, we have the option to leave
them out if
Quoting Casey A Mullin :
Regarding the "extra time" argument, I will just say this
succinctly. At Stanford, we did not use relator codes/terms under
AACR2. We do under RDA (though, as previously stated, we have the
option to leave them out if choosing one leads to agonizing). After
our in
Regarding the "extra time" argument, I will just say this succinctly. At
Stanford, we did not use relator codes/terms under AACR2. We do under
RDA (though, as previously stated, we have the option to leave them out
if choosing one leads to agonizing). After our initial training period,
in which
On 23/08/2011 17:25, Kevin M Randall wrote:
James Weinheimer wrote:
When discussing practical issues, it's not out of place to mention that latest
research reveals that user knowledge and abilities are very low. This article
was just announced "What Students Don't Know
"http://www.insidehighere
James Weinheimer wrote:
> When discussing practical issues, it's not out of place to mention that latest
> research reveals that user knowledge and abilities are very low. This article
> was just announced "What Students Don't Know
> "http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/08/22/erial_study_of_st
On 22/08/2011 20:28, Casey A Mullin wrote:
Jim, you raise an interesting point with regards to the different
functions of the 245c and the 700. However, I'm having a hard time
reconciling this functional difference you cite with your subsequent
comment about users' lack of ability in using our
Casey Mullin said:
>Jim, you raise an interesting point with regards to the different
>functions of the 245c and the 700.
Sometimes the form in the 245/$c will differ from the form in 7XX.
Sometimes the difference arises after the record is created, and can
not be anticipated.
Transcribing a
Jim, you raise an interesting point with regards to the different
functions of the 245c and the 700. However, I'm having a hard time
reconciling this functional difference you cite with your subsequent
comment about users' lack of ability in using our retrieval tools. Would
this average user yo
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
> Sent: August 22, 2011 1:05 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justificatio
scription and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 12:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries
Casey Mullin said:
>The example I cited in my original post was intended to
Casey Mullin said:
>The example I cited in my original post was intended to
>show a straightforward example of redundant entry.
But if the form of name in the entry changes, having transcribed the
form on the item is no longer redundant.
SLC made quite a bit of money in early days of automating
On 22/08/2011 17:29, Casey A Mullin wrote:
As Karen Coyle has often pointed out, it's extremely inefficient to
input things twice, as data and text. RDA is actually an attempt to
lead us away from this inefficiency, by downplaying free-text elements
as not part of "core". The example I cited i
Quoting "Myers, John F." :
Karen Coyle wrote:
Mac, can you give more info on 1) difficulties caused ...
--
As Mac subsequently replied, the use of relator terms can cause
havoc with the display and indexing in the ILS.
I agree that the codes
James said:
> I just wish someone would actually demonstrate what would be the impact
>on the public of adding the relator codes ...
One subject I see little addressed is the inconsistency between legacy
and new records, not to mention the inconsistency is adding relator codes
in the absence of
On 8/22/2011 7:19 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: August 22, 2011 5:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
> Sent: August 22, 2011 5:41 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justificatio
Karen Coyle wrote:
Mac, can you give more info on 1) difficulties caused ...
--
As Mac subsequently replied, the use of relator terms can cause havoc with the
display and indexing in the ILS. Some relator terms were more common in card
days and
mike.tri...@quality-books.com
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 8:45 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification
Is cataloger time important? Looking up and adding relator terms was one of
the most frustrating and time-consuming tasks for me while I was creating RDA
records during the test. And I've never understood how three or four of them
will help the patron when the other three hundred entries for P
On 20/08/2011 21:52, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Karen, you asked:
Mac, can you give more info on difficulties caused ...
Go to various OPACs and search by any prolific author. In some you
will see the person's names displayed once, with titles alphabetically
following. The name displayed is from
] Justification of added entries
I wrote previously
>> How is all this intended to be captured with $i/$j or other mechanisms of
>> registering these elements?
I meant to say $e/$j for the relationship designators in question.
RDA, once the patterns are seen, is remarkably consistent (I&
Thomas said:
>The Preferred Name for the Person element is not a static element,
YES. Seymour Lubetsky's omission of 245 /$c when the same as 1XX came
back to bite us in the a$$ when those 1XX's changed their corporate
names, got married. or changed their gender. Ditto "The Office" and
such in
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert [ehler...@umn.edu]
Sent: August-20-11 9:55 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> The LC documentation does say not to assign $4 codes, and as you point
> out, only required $e for the illustrators of children's books. The
> documentation says assign according the LC policy, not cataloguer
> whim:
>
> 100-111 $e (R) Relationship designator Give RDA appe
Adam Schiff wrote:
These LCPSs simply tell LC catalogers that they MUST use a
relationship designator for illustrators contributing to children's
resources. They don't forbid the catalogers from using other
relationship designators. There were no LCPSs that disallowed the use
of other designat
Karen, you asked:
>Mac, can you give more info on difficulties caused ...
Go to various OPACs and search by any prolific author. In some you
will see the person's names displayed once, with titles alphabetically
following. The name displayed is from the 100 or 700 of the first
title listed. I
Quoting Casey A Mullin :
ISBD and flat MARC records (and the conventions that stem from their
use) are tools to provide access to our resources. They are not ends
in themselves.
Yeah, Casey! A quote worth quoting.
kc
RDA is very clear on this
Cheers,
Casey
P.S. As has been discussed
Quoting "J. McRee Elrod" :
Relator terms (whether $e or $i) cause so much difficulty in present
ILS, that none of our library clients will accept them. Extensive ILS
development is required before implementation of RDA.
Mac, can you give more info on 1) difficulties caused and 2) some
exam
Adam Schiff said:
>These LCPSs simply tell LC catalogers that they MUST use a
>relationship designator for illustrators contributing to children's
>resources. They don't forbid the catalogers from using other relationship
>designators. There were no LCPSs that disallowed the use of other
>de
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
But according to the LCPS, that $e was not to be supplied during the
test...
There is no such LCPS.
It was in the LC documentation for the test. whatever initials with which
you are most comfortable.
This is what the documentation says:
LCPS for I.3.1 Relationship D
>J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>> But according to the LCPS, that $e was not to be supplied during the
>> test...
>
>There is no such LCPS.
It was in the LC documentation for the test. whatever initials with which
you are most comfortable.
We have seen few $e relator terms apart from illustrators, but o
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> But according to the LCPS, that $e was not to be supplied during the
> test...
There is no such LCPS.
> ...and was not by most testing institutions.
Are you sure it's most? For instance, of the 7700 so-called "extra
set" bib records submitted as part of the test, there
Casey Mullin posted:
>24510 $c ... ; [commentary by Joe Smith].
>or
>500 __Commentary by Joe Smith.
>plus >7001_Smith, Joe, $e writer of added commentary.
>
>..is completely redundant to the user
But according to the LCPS, that $e was not to be supplied during the
test, and was not by most te
This particular criticism of RDA has come up time and again on this and
other lists of late, and I feel the need to offer another perspective...
It seems to me that one of the intents of RDA is to offer more
flexibility for cataloging agencies to satisfy the user tasks. To wit,
this can be acc
and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries
Thomas said:
>To make justification of added
From: J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: August-18-11 2:10 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Justification of added entries
>>Thomas said:
>>To make justification of added entries a requirement one could make
>>RDA
Thomas said:
>To make justification of added entries a requirement one could make
>RDA 18.6 a core element. RDA 18.6 is the instruction for adding
>explanations regarding attribution.
It would also be needed, I think, to restore a relationship between
transcription of authors, and tracing. At pr
49 matches
Mail list logo
